Why Trials Like Trump’s Must Be Televised

Why Trials Like Trump’s Must Be Televised

he New York trial of Trump is a national scandal. There is no real crime. The judge has allowed testimony that is highly prejudicial and irrelevant. He has made numerous unfair rulings, More »

Egypt’s Duplicity, the World’s Silence

Egypt’s Duplicity, the World’s Silence

If the Egyptians actually cared about the Palestinians, instead of blocking the entry of aid into the Gaza Strip, they could easily coordinate with Israel though alternative border crossings. Evidently the Egyptians More »

Magigiri z’Umwakagara ziratomboza nyamara kugigira ntabwo habamo gutomboza!!!

Magigiri z’Umwakagara ziratomboza nyamara kugigira ntabwo habamo gutomboza!!!

Reka nongere ntange amasomo kuri za magigiri z’abega, ni gute ubumagigiri buhuzwa nikoranabuhanga kugirango za magigiri zishobora kugigira abo zishaka guca ibihanga? Kugigira no kuba ukora imilimo y’ikoranabuhanga nimilimo ibiri (2) itandukanye More »

Ubutegetsi bwa William Samuei Ruto bukomeje kuba amayobera

Ubutegetsi bwa William Samuei Ruto bukomeje kuba amayobera

Amakuru mu gihugu cya Kenya aratangaza ko ubutegetsi bwa RUTO bukomeje kuba amayobera aho bushinzwe kunyunyuza imitsi y’abaturage gusa bushyiraho amategeko atabereye abaturage mu gihe cy’imyaka (2) gusa amaze ku butegetsi, umushinga More »

The Real Reason Hamas and Egypt Oppose Israel’s Control of Rafah, the Only Border Out of Gaza

The Real Reason Hamas and Egypt Oppose Israel’s Control of Rafah, the Only Border Out of Gaza

The Egyptians and Hamas have good reason to be angry with the presence of the IDF at the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing. For several years, Palestinians who wanted to More »

 

How (and Why) Palestinian Leaders Scare the World by Khaled Abu Toameh

  • Abbas has perfected the art of financial extortion. Every Monday and Thursday, as it were, the Palestinian Authority (PA) president has threatened to resign and/or dissolve the PA. This tactic has a twofold aim: cold hard European and American cash, and a gaze directed away from the PA’s turmoil.

  • The PA wants the following response from the international community: “Oh my God, we must do something to salvage the peace process. We need to put even more pressure on these Israelis before matters get out of hand.”
  • Abbas wants the world’s eyes on Israel — and Israel alone. That way, the fierce behind-the-scenes battle for succession that has been raging among the top brass of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank will stay far from the limelight.
  • The PA seeks a solution imposed upon Israel by the international community. Why negotiate when Western powers are prepared to do everything to see Israel brought to its knees?

What do you do when your home has become hell?

If you are Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, you divert attention from the mess as fast as possible.

For a start, Abbas is trying to scare the international community into believing that without increased pressure on Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA) will be forced to resort to unilateral measures, such as attempting to create new “facts on the ground” in the West Bank.

Next, Abbas is threatening to renew the Palestinian call for convening an international conference for peace in the Middle East and to step up rhetorical attacks against Israel.

Finally, Abbas has perfected the art of financial extortion. Every Monday and Thursday, as it were, the PA president has threatened to resign and/or dissolve the PA. This tactic has a twofold aim: cold hard European and American cash and a gaze directed away from the PA’s turmoil.

Abbas wants the world’s eyes on Israel — and Israel alone. That way, the fierce behind-the-scenes battle for succession that has been raging among the top brass of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank will stay far from the limelight.

This week, Abbas’s spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudaineh, announced that the Palestinian Authority was coordinating with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan in order to create “facts on the ground” to establish a Palestinian state.

This announcement was designed to tighten the international screws on Israel. The threat to “create facts on the ground” was a direct message to the US and the EU that they had better push Israel farther — and faster — or the Palestinians would be left with no recourse but to build in Area C of the West Bank, currently under exclusive Israeli control.

Yet Palestinian building in Area C is not just a threat. In fact, and thanks to the financial and logistical aid of the EU, Palestinians have already begun building that project in some parts of the West Bank.

What the PA wants is the following response from the international community: “Oh my God, we must do something to salvage the peace process. We need to put even more pressure on these Israelis before matters get out of hand.”

The PA seeks a solution imposed upon Israel by the international community. This has been quite clear for some time, but the PA spokesman’s recent announcement leaves no room for doubt. Abbas has no incentive whatsoever to return to the negotiating table with Israel. Why negotiate when Western powers are prepared to do everything to see Israel brought to its knees?

As part of this strategy, Abbas last week renewed his call for an international conference to discuss “ways of solving the Palestinian cause.” According to the PA president, the international community that has reached understandings that Syria, Libya and Iran should be able to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This is nothing but an Abbas scare-tactics redux. Radical Islam and terrorism, so we are to believe, will be conquered by solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The president of the PA desires to implant in the minds of the West a direct link between the Islamic State terror group (ISIS) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But Abbas might have done well to check in with his sources. ISIS and the other terror groups currently destroying the Arab world do not give a damn about Israeli settlements or checkpoints. Nor is a two-state solution on their docket. These groups have a different agenda — to conquer the world and establish an Islamic empire. En route to achieving their aim, the Muslim terrorists will kill “apostates” and “infidels” including Abbas and other Arab leaders.

“President Abbas’s call for an international conference reflects the state of confusion and wallowing he is in,” remarked former Palestinian cabinet minister Hassan Asfour. “The appeal is designed to search for an unclear and jellied formula and it has no legitimacy.” Asfour noted that there was no need for such a conference, in light of the fact that the UN already recognized a Palestinian state in 2012.

So what exactly is Abbas trying to achieve? For the most part, Palestinian political analysts are convinced that the eighty-year-old president, who is about to enter the eleventh year of his four-year term in office, is simply seeking to hold onto the reins of power. The best way to do so, they argue, is by keeping up the buzz about international conferences and potential Palestinian unilateral moves on the ground.

In order to run the Palestinian show until his last day, Abbas needs to divert attention from the battle of succession that has hit the spotlight in the past few days. Top Fatah officials have been pushing him to appoint a deputy president, in the hope of forestalling a power vacuum upon his departure from the scene for one reason or another.

These officials have long censured Abbas for running the PA as if it were his private fiefdom. Among the critics are Jibril Rajoub, Tawkif Tirawi, Mohamed Dahlan, Salam Fayyad and Yasser Abed Rabbo — all of whom regard themselves as potential successors to his seat.

Mohamed Dahlan (right), a former PA security commander in the Gaza Strip, is one of the major critics and rivals of PA President Mahmoud Abbas (left), and hopes to succeed him in the presidency. (Image sources: U.S. State Dept., M. Dahlan Office)

Meanwhile, Abbas’s preferred candidate for deputy president appears to be none other than Saeb Erekat, the PLO’s chief negotiator who was recently upgraded to the post of PLO Secretary-General. This choice, however, is not going down well with Fatah officials, many of whom have expressed their opposition to the attempt to pave the way for Erekat to become the next Palestinian president.

A direct link does exist, then, but it is not, as Abbas contends, one between ISIS and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The true direct link is between the urgency Abbas feels at home to prop up a crumbling empire and his intimidation of the international community. In other words, when Abbas feels the heat, Israel is thrown into the fire.

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Hoodwinking the Kuffar by Denis MacEoin

  • The implication is that Muslims too love Jesus — an approach that is bound to attract Christian passers-by (including priests and nuns) if only out of curiosity. But the Jesus of the Qur’an is not the Jesus of the New Testament. For Muslims, he is not the Son of God, not one third of the Trinity, did not die on the cross, was not resurrected after death, and is not God incarnate. He is simply one of a long line of prophets, important — yet inferior to Muhammad.

  • “We call them stinking kafir [non-Muslims], dirty. But, of course, akhi [brother], if that’s going to run them away from al-Islam, we don’t say that to them in front of their face.” — Abu Usamah, an imam at the Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham.
  • No one loves the kuffaar. No one loves the kuffaar! [unbelievers] … Whether these kuffaar are from the UK, or from the US … We love the people of Islam and we hate the people of the kufr. We hate the kuffaar. Whoever changes his religion from al-Islam to anything else kill him in the Islamic state. — Abu Usamah al-Thahabi, Channel 4 documentary, 2007.

When long-standing Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas met US President Donald Trump on May 7, he came out with what we British call a whopper, a huge lie. Here is what Abbas said with a straight face:

“Mr. President, I affirm to you that we are raising our youth, our children, our grandchildren on a culture of peace. And we are endeavoring to bring about security, freedom and peace for our children to live like the other children in the world, along with the Israeli children, in peace, freedom and security.”

We expect politicians to lie out of all sides of their mouths, to use doublespeak in order to seduce citizens to vote for them. Whether they be government officials or opposition hopefuls, a certain amount of economy with the truth is par for the course. Political analysts and well-informed journalists know this, of course, and work hard to untangle these webs. Facts matter. Sources make a difference. And in democratic countries that value free speech and the freedom of the press, politicians are held to account. Not many falsehoods get off Scot-free, and serial liars are regularly brought to book.

Politicians and their spokespeople know this, however, and do their best to keep their lies within reasonable bounds, even when making promises they have no real desire to fulfil. Abbas’s lies, however, are so gargantuan as to be in a league of their own. There, the exact opposite is true, and thousands of videos, texts, and recorded radio broadcasts show that the PA, the PLO, Fatah and Abbas himself have, over the years done their utmost to teach Palestinian children to hate and prepare themselves for violence against Jews.

There is a reason for this subterfuge. Muslims in general, especially those promoting extreme ideas, are growing more and more conscious of how they appear in the forum of public opinion. Even the terrorist group Hamas has issued a new Charter from which they have removed the explicit anti-Semitic passages of its 1988 version, in order to make it look better in Western eyes. In fact, Hamas has not changed its ways, and is still planning to use violence to eliminate Israel and replace it with an Islamic Palestinian state.

The more that Islam, Islamic terrorism, Muslim extremism, and anxieties in Europe about Muslim immigrants receive a bad press, the more many Muslim organizations and individuals see a need to make a better impression on the public in America, Europe, Canada and Australia. This does not refer to genuine reformers who work hard to create a new Islam from which its most negative values — jihad, corporal punishment, execution for adultery, female oppression and violence — have been replaced by values closer to the Judaeo-Christian principles that inform Western civilization. The target here is the extremists who have taken lessons from the world of public relations management, and who see advantage in adopting at least an outward style of liberalization and peace activism.

To a large extent, this desire to present a positive image while holding extremist and conservative ideas is linked to the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya, which may be defined as dissimulation, and is used to protect a believer from criticism or attack. Historically, it was mainly used by Shi’i Muslims living in Sunni lands, who would pray, celebrate festivals, and speak as though they were Sunnis, to avoid persecution. Less commonly, it was and still is used by Sunni Muslims, especially when living in non-Muslim territory. Given the large numbers of Muslims now living in and entering Western countries, its use has not surprisingly become more commonplace, even if some anti-Muslim bigots wildly exaggerate its scale. With its roots in the Qur’an (3:28) — “Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers” — the term has also been interpreted to mean that a Muslim may be outwardly friendly to non-Muslims while remaining inwardly ill-disposed.

This in part explains why so many Salafi fundamentalist Muslims today engage in charitable and social work to assist their non-Muslim fellow citizens, stress their love for Jesus, and hold meetings to which they invite non-believers in order to learn what Muslims are really like. If you look at the community section of the website of the London-based Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), you will find links to the organization’s several charity enterprises: “Helping the Homeless in London”, “Warming up the Elderly in London”, “Ongoing Neighbourhood Cleanup Efforts”, “Good News from the ‘Love Your Neighbour’ campaign”, “The Elderly Care Project: Winter Warmth Campaign”, and “iERA at the Refugees Welcome here Rally”.

My local Church of England vicar takes groups of his parishioners to visit Newcastle Central Mosque (a Salafi/Ahl-e Hadith institution), where they are regaled with warmth and good food. In return, members of the mosque have visited St. George’s Church despite the presence of crosses and crucifixes and the vain images on the beautiful stained-glass windows. All buddies on the surface. But the real reason the Muslims are acting like this is in order to attract Christians to Islam. They do not, however, invite the rabbi and his congregation from the local Orthodox synagogue near where I live.

The UK alone hosts a number of organizations that present a seemingly friendly face to the public while harbouring beliefs and supporting individuals whose hatred for non-Muslims is palpable.

I do not wish to condemn this charitable work: quite possibly they do much good. It is quite likely that many homeless, elderly, and refugee people benefit from what they do, or that local neighbourhood campaigners appreciate their cleanup efforts. Superficially, their devotion to the needy is commendable, and much the same as the devotion shown by Christian charities such as the Salvation Army. In fact, a 2013 poll by ICM found that Muslims are far ahead of Atheists, Christians and Jews in the amounts they give to charity, something they deserve to be proud of. At the same time,

“JustGiving said religious charities such as Muslim Aid and Islamic Relief benefited most from money donated by Muslims, but many of their donations also went to the likes of Cancer Research, Macmillan and the British Heart Foundation.”

Here, though, is the problem: Muslim Aid and Islamic Relief have been closely linked to funding Islamic terrorism around the world. Giving to cancer research is one thing, but giving to Hamas and other groups is quite another.

iERA, a British charity, was set up in 2009 by a Muslim convert called Abdur Raheem Green (formerly Anthony Green)[1], and its purpose from the beginning was to carry out da’wa, or proselytization, to win converts for Islam. That remains its primary purpose. On their website, where you will find references to “Dawah Training” and “Dawah Campaigns”. A range of visual images appears on the screen, showing various missionary activities, notably giving out literature to Christians, with a link to “Giving Dawah to Christians”. There is a photograph of a group of iERA workers sporting bright blue hoodies with the name “Jesus” prominently displayed next to a large box containing the book Jesus: Man, Messenger, Messiah, part of a Prophetic Legacy Series featuring books on Abraham and Moses.

This is itself disingenuous. The implication is that Muslims too love Jesus — an approach that is bound to attract Christian passers-by (including priests and nuns, as shown in photographs) if only out of curiosity. But the Jesus of the Qur’an is not the Jesus of the New Testament. For Muslims, he is not the Son of God, not one third of the Trinity, did not die on the cross, was not resurrected after death, and is not God incarnate. He is simply one of a long line of prophets, important — yet inferior to Muhammad.

If the deceptions used in da’wa work were the only cause for concern about iERA, it might not appear worrying; but iERA has long been censured for its extremist Salafi/Wahhabi basis. The several preachers who sit or have sat on its advisory board or its board of trustees are among the most hardline exponents of radical Islam in the UK and abroad. Many have been banned from the UK and other countries.

Green himself (chair of the Board of Trustees) is an anti-Semite who urges the death penalty [pp. 12-13] for homosexuality and adultery, has stated that we should not argue with al-Qa’eda’s methods because “terrorism works”. Hamza Tzortzis, a co-founder of iERA, has said that “we as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even the idea of freedom”. [And here, p. 16] He also wishes to criminalise homosexuality, which he compares to paedophilia and cannibalism. He was originally a member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir[2]. He also supports the death penalty for apostasy and blasphemy. [Also here, with a video; and here quoted by Nick Cohen.] He has supported child marriage under certain conditions. [Also here, with a transcript; here with a video.] In a Birmingham University debate, he refused to condemn shari’a punishments such as stoning and amputation.

A former member of iERA’s board of advisors, Bilal Philips, has been deported or banned from the US, Britain, Kenya, Germany, Australia and the Philippines for his terror connections, including his support for the Taliban and Hamas. He justifies child marriage[3], severe punishments including execution for apostates and homosexuals[4]. It is worth adding that Philips is an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and in the 1995 prosecution U.S. v. Omar Abdel Rahman, “in which almost a dozen people — including Clement Hampton-El, an associate of Philips — were convicted of conspiring to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels in New York City, among other terrorism-related activities.”

Other well-known names include Haitham al-Haddad, Zakir Naik, and Hussein Yee, some of whom are on record for their support of terrorism[5], some for their advocacy of extreme punishments[6]; and some for their hatred of non-Muslims[7]. These men and others stand out among the most problematic hate preachers in the Western world and occasionally elsewhere. Their motives are thoroughly questionable[8].

It could not be clearer that the “good works” of iERA have not seemed to revolve around true motives of care for human beings in need. Those who ran and still run the organization were perfectly happy to throw homosexuals off high roofs, stone adulterers, order suicide bombings of Jews in Israel, wage jihad against non-Muslims in general, treat their own women badly, and preach violence to young Muslims and Muslim converts. Writing in London’s Daily Telegraph in November 2014, Andrew Gilligan stated:

“Others paid thousands of pounds of public money in Gift Aid [i.e. from the UK government] include IERA (sic), a charity closely linked to a number of the ‘Portsmouth jihadis’ – six young men from the Hampshire city who travelled together to fight for Islamic State (Isil) in Syria. At least two of the six, Mehdi Hassan and Ifthekar Jaman, and possibly as many as five, were members of the ‘Portsmouth Dawah [Prayer] Team,’ a group which proselytises in the streets of the port.” Naturally, iERA denied this connection, but Gilligan added, “The group was last year described by Mission Dawah, part of IERA, as ‘our team from Portsmouth.'”

Many unsuspecting people, little understanding just what and who stand behind the movement but impressed by the appearance of disinterested good works on behalf of the needy, given handouts on Muslim love for Jesus, or invited to iERA barbecues and get-togethers, will take everything at face value. A number of them will convert, assuming they have joined a religion of love, peace and charitable works. Some sociologists of religion have pointed out that neophytes attracted by friendly faces and warm words convert with little or no knowledge of the cults or faiths they join. But once inside, they are introduced slowly to the new beliefs they must hold, the rituals they must perform, and the laws they must obey[9]. This is one of the several paths that lead to radicalisation and all it entails. Charity may begin at home, but in instances such as these, it not infrequently leads to death.

The Salafi Central Mosque in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the largest city in North-East England, hosts an organization named the Islamic Diversity Centre. Like the iERA, whose northern centre it is, the IDC engages in charitable work. Among its many “Social Initiatives” are an “Elderly Community Lunch in Teeside”, an “Elderly Care Project 2017”, “Help the Homeless 2017”, “Neighbourhood Clean Up 2016”, “Love Your Neighbour 2016”, “ECP Winter Warmth Campaign 2016”, “Feed the Homeless 2015”, a “Newcastle Blood Donation Campaign” and a bevy of similar projects, dating back to 2013. Another campaign has focussed on bringing toys to ailing children in North Tees and other hospitals. The Centre itself was founded in 2010 and appears to be the only body of that name in the UK. IDC Northeast has also launched a national campaign “Standing Against Racism and Against Hatred”. In Newcastle itself, the organisation appears on the streets with a stall from which its members hand out soup or other foodstuffs to the poor.

Here again, we are presented with a series of projects about which we can scarcely complain. Which of us would not want to feed the homeless or warm the elderly? But the same criticisms that we applied to iERA apply here. The Islamic Diversity Centre seems to have modelled itself on iERA and is, similarly a da’wa centre aimed at the conversion of non-Muslims, mainly, it seems, impressionable youngsters. Speakers such as the highly controversial Abu Usamah al-Thahabi have addressed audiences there.

Al-Thahabi is an extremist figure, an imam at the extremist Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham[10]. Speaking of non-Muslims (including, one assumes, the elderly and homeless whom the IDC goes out to help) he has said:

“We call them stinking kafir [unbelievers], dirty. But, of course, akhi [brother], if that’s going to run them away from al-Islam, we don’t say that to them in front of their face…. So the non-Muslims, part of being a non-Muslim is that they are liars, usually”.

Is that not a breathtaking indictment of this use of apparent goodness in order to bring unsuspecting people into the Islamic fold?

The only excuse he can find for living among the dirty kuffar (non-Muslims) is that it is necessary for missionary work:

Dawah is one of the reasons that a person is allowed to live with the kuffar. But living with the kuffar is a major sin, ikhwan [brothers], and it closes the door for a lot of (us?) in our lives. As we sit here ikhwan we have to hate it in our hearts, living with these kuffar. And whether you realise it or not, it is impacting upon us.”

In a 2010 report from the British Centre for Social Cohesion, then directed by Douglas Murray, one reads:

Dhahabee [al-Thahabi] advocates holy war in an Islamic state; preaches hatred against non-Muslims; that apostasy and homosexuality are punishable by death; and that women are inferior to men. In a 2007 Channel 4 documentary Dhahabee was recorded as saying the following to his congregation:

We ask Allah to bring about the means and the ways in which the Muslims will get the power and the honour of repelling the oppression of the kuffaar, where we can go out and perform the jihad. We ask Allah to bring that time so we can be participants in that.

No one loves the kuffaar. No one loves the kuffaar! [unbelievers] […] Whether these kuffaar are from the UK, or from the US … We love the people of Islam and we hate the people of the kufr. We hate the kuffaar.

Whoever changes his religion from al-Islam to anything else kill him in the Islamic state.

Do you practise homosexuality with men? Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain.

Allah has created the woman, even if she gets a PhD, deficient. Her intellect is incomplete, deficient. She may be suffering from hormones that will make her emotional. It takes two witnesses of a woman to equal one witness of the man.

IDC was founded and is directed by Abu-Tayeb Khair Deen, about whom not much is known. A close reading of his Facebook page, however, reveals that he shares material from Bilal Phillips (see above) of iERA (24 March, 13 March, Muhammad al-Munajjid[11] and Abu Eesa Niamatullah[12]. Munajjid is a Palestinian “refugee” brought up in Saudi Arabia. He describes Jews as the top enemies of Islam; he indulges in fierce anti-Jewish hate speech[13], calls for execution of anyone who blasphemes against the prophet Muhammad[14] and homosexuals[15], instructs women to cover themselves except for their eyes and hands or even entirely[16], and declares they must never be rulers, says that a Muslim man may have sex with a slave girl[17] and insists that churches, synagogues or the temples of other faiths must never be built in Muslim countries.

Abu Eesa, a Pakistani-British Salafi, has called British people “animals”, attacks democracy, calls for restrictions on women, is an anti-Semite[18] and is vocally opposed to progressive Muslims who try to integrate within Western societies.. Abu Tayeb Khair Deen’s Facebook page (dated July 31, 2014) carries anti-Israel, pro-Hamas videos shared with him by Abu Eesa.

Elsewhere, Khair Deen shares posts from Bilal Philips, Abu Usamah, Yasir Qadhi, and Green Lane Mosque, posts an anti-Prevent video, and an iERA video. Many of these links identify Khair Deen and the centre he runs with Salafi extremism. What genuine love can the members of the IDC have for non-Muslims they profess to care for when they are being thus instructed?

The Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham, England. (Image source: Oosoom/Wikimedia Commons)

Dr. Denis MacEoin has spent a lifetime studying Islam and related matters. He has been a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute since 2014.


[1] For more on Green, see Sara Khan, The Battle for British Islam, London, 2016, pp. 64-66.

[2] See also Khan, Batttle, p. 64.

[3] Also here; here; and here

[4] Also here and here

[5] For Haddad, see here and here; For Naik, see here (“Home Office sources said Dr Naik had been filmed on a website making inflammatory comments such as “every Muslim should be a terrorist.”) and here; for Yee, see here (“May Allah help all the mujahideen [jihad fighters], especially in Palestine, especially in Iraq, and wherever they are, who fight to protect human rights [sic]”)

[6] For Haddad, see here (“It is a ‘must’ for all Muslims to establish hudood punishments”) and here; for Naik, see here and here (“He urges Muslims in India to support the hudud punishments for all Indians. Needless to say, he believes in the death penalty for homosexuals and for apostasy”)

[7] For Haddad, see here (‘Non-Muslims/Kuffar) and here (In a sermon he refers to Jews and Christians, describing them as “swine eaters” and “cross worshippers”, and saying that for Muslims, hating Jews and Christians is a “necessity”; for Naik, see here.

[8] For a full list, with descriptions, of leading iERA and other far-right Muslim activists past and present, go here and here. For fuller details about any of these, search alphabetically here.

[9] See, for example here, p. 156

[10] See also here and here.

[11] See here, 24 March

[12] See here, 31 July 2014.

[13] See also here and here: “The Jews are nothing but Jews: They are the most malicious nation, they have the dirtiest nature, they are the farthest from mercy, the nearest to Allah’s Wrath. Their hearts are full of envy and grudge. They commit massacres one after the other.”

[14] See also here and here.

[15] See also here and here.

[16] “if the woman’s niqaab or burqa’ does not show anything but the eyes, and the opening is only as big as the left eye, as was narrated from some of the salaf (companions of Muhammad), then that is permissible, otherwise she should wear something which covers her face entirely”. And see here.

[17] See also here, here and here.

Hmm, Where Could All This Hatred Be Coming From? Wrong-Headed Cures for the Prejudice Problem by Douglas Murray

  • As with the Labour party students at Oxford, it is hard to argue that party members should have zero-tolerance towards anti-Semites when the party’s current leader has spent his whole career happily tolerating them.

  • As many on the so-called left have earlier shown, their sinister idea of “re-education” for their opponents supposes that their own ideas on “education” are correct.
  • “Anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article — if they are honest with themselves — will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret.” — Mehdi Hassan, The New Statesman.
  • Is it not possible that anti-Muslim feeling, if it exists, might be in part propelled by the discovery that anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice (against women and gay people to name just two other “minorities”) are also “routine and commonplace” among British Muslims?

Not a month goes by in Britain without some left-wing proponent of anti-Jewish racism exposing themselves. Last month it was the Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) that was found to be harbouring anti-Semites among its members. In recent weeks there have been a number of adult members of the Labour party who have been readmitted to the party or promoted within it while holding extreme anti-Jewish views.

The most recent case revolves around one Vicki Kirby, a Labour parliamentary candidate before the last general election, when she was suspended from the party for tweeting about Jews having “big noses,” Adolf Hitler being the “Zionist god” and other ramblings. Naturally, Ms. Kirby’s suspension has since been lifted. As with the Labour party students at Oxford, it is very hard to argue that party members should have zero-tolerance towards anti-Semites when the party’s current leader has spent his whole career happily tolerating them. Last week it came to public attention that Ms. Kirby had now become the vice-chair of her local party chapter.

The story was broken on right-of-centre websites, which ordinarily means that left-of-centre activists dismiss them as “smears.” But these stories are now coming in so thick and fast that an increasing number of people on the left are starting to admit they might have a problem. At least they are choosing to throw the more minor anti-Semites under the bus while preserving those at the top of their ranks. Had the charges aimed at Ms. Kirby been aimed at Mr Corbyn, we would still be being told that these were “rumours,” “innuendo” and the like.

Nevertheless, some Corbyn loyalists have decided that Ms. Kirby may indeed be a bit much, and realized that it is probably time to address the problem. Unfortunately, having failed to recognize the virus earlier, the remedies these people are now suggesting for cure are predictably wrong-headed.

Take for example the Guardian-published Corbyn activist, Owen Jones. Last week, ignoring his own history of stirring up lies against the Jewish state, he responded to his party’s latest embarrassment by arguing that Labour’s rules should be changed so that “anyone found guilty of anti-Semitism — or any other form of racism — is expelled from the party.” He went on to say that, “Their readmission should only happen when they have demonstrably been shown to have been re-educated.” There is the start of the problem. As so often with those on the Corbyn-ite wing of politics, the answer to problems of the heart or mind is “re-education.” The only problem — as the left many have earlier shown in a range of twentieth-century initiatives ranging from Stalin to Mao — is that their sinister idea of “re-education” for their opponents supposes that their own ideas on “education” are correct. As Jones goes on to show, this is rarely the case.

For his second prevarication for dealing with Labour’s anti-Semitism problem, Jones wrote that the party should:

“… set up two commissions: one on antisemitism, the other on anti-Muslim prejudice, respectively headed by a leading Jewish and a Muslim figure. Both forms of bigotry are on the rise in Britain, and both exist within progressive circles and the Labour party. The commissions could issue a series of recommendations, both for dealing with it when it arises within Labour, and also in wider society.”

As everyone involved in politics knows, there are two ways truly to ignore a problem: the first is just to ignore it; the second is to “set up a commission.”

But there are several perhaps unwittingly interesting things about this flaccid suggestion. The first is the reflexive and unthinking demonstration among many these days that they cannot possibly deal with anti-Semitism unless they also throw Muslims into the mix. To deal with anti-Semitism on its own might throw up too many problems and raise too many communal problems.

But let us say that two such commissions were set up. And let us pretend for a moment that they were indeed headed by people who were not merely “leading” but also honest figures.

The head of the commission to look into anti-Semitic prejudice, might find a number of startling things. He or she might find, for instance, that the dominant strand of anti-Semitism in British life in 2016 comes not from Ms. Kirby’s ilk, but from the British Muslim community. The commission head would not have to go far to learn this. One only has to pick up a copy of the British left’s in-house magazine, The New Statesman, and read an article from just three years ago by the British-born Al-Jazeera broadcaster, Mehdi Hassan. In an unusually honest piece entitled, “The sorry truth is that the virus of anti-Semitism has infected the British Muslim community,” the author explains that:

“Anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace. Any Muslims reading this article — if they are honest with themselves — will know instantly what I am referring to. It’s our dirty little secret.”

So as Hassan has reminded us, the sorry truth is that if a commission into anti-Semitism were set up, it would have to finger the majority of British Muslims as at least a very large part of the problem.

Meanwhile, let us say that the second commission were set up — the one that gives cover to the anti-Semitism commission which is looking at “anti-Muslim” feeling. This commission might come to an equally problematic conclusion. This commission might conclude, for instance, that to the extent that any “anti-Muslim” feeling might be said to exist in the UK, it comes from a number of factors quite separate from innate and unalterable prejudice in the hearts of the British people. It might come, for instance, from a dislike of suicide-bombings, assassinations, beheadings and other varieties of terrorism carried out while discussing the greatness of Allah. Although most British people will remain perfectly capable of understanding the difference between the actions of the extremists and the behaviour of the vast majority of British Muslims, they may be concerned about the amount of deflection and denial that they see even from leaders of very mainstream Muslim organizations. Indeed, is it not possible that anti-Muslim feeling, if it exists, might not also be in part propelled by the discovery that anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice (against women and gay people to name just two “minorities”) are also “routine and commonplace” among British Muslims?

Perhaps after all it would be best if the Corbyn-ite element of the Labour party does not attempt this process of “re-education”? The path to wisdom must include some self-understanding. Yet the Labour party’s anti-Semitism problem comes from people who propel the very hatred they profess to despise. As such, they remain in no position to “re-educate” anyone, as they so stubbornly refuse to educate themselves.

Douglas Murray, a British political analyst and commentator, is based in London.

History, Precedent and Comey Statement Show that Trump Did Not Obstruct Justice by Alan M. Dershowitz

  • The statement may provide political ammunition to Trump opponents, but unless they are willing to stretch James Comey’s words and take Trump’s out of context, and unless they are prepared to abandon important constitutional principles and civil liberties that protect us all, they should not be searching for ways to expand already elastic criminal statutes and shrink enduring constitutional safeguards in a dangerous and futile effort to criminalize political disagreements.

  • The first casualty of partisan efforts to “get” a political opponent — whether Republicans going after Clinton or Democrats going after Trump — is often civil liberties. All Americans who care about the Constitution and civil liberties must join together to protest efforts to expand existing criminal law to get political opponents.
  • Today it is Trump. Yesterday it was Clinton. Tomorrow it could be you.

In 1992, then President George Walker Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals who had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms deal. The special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was furious, accusing Bush of stifling his ongoing investigation and suggesting that he may have done it to prevent Weinberger or the others from pointing the finger of blame at Bush himself. The New York Times also reported that the investigation might have pointed to Bush himself.

This is what Walsh said:

“The Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed with the pardon of Caspar Weinberger. We will make a full report on our findings to Congress and the public describing the details and extent of this cover-up.”

Yet President Bush was neither charged with obstruction of justice nor impeached. Nor have other presidents who interfered with ongoing investigations or prosecutions been charged with obstruction.

It is true that among the impeachment charges levelled against President Nixon was one for obstructing justice, but Nixon committed the independent crime of instructing his aides to lie to the FBI, which is a violation of section 1001 of the federal criminal code.

It is against the background of this history and precedent that the statement of former FBI Director James must be considered. Comey himself acknowledged that,

“throughout history, some presidents have decided that because ‘problems’ come from Justice, they should try to hold the Department close. But blurring those boundaries ultimately makes the problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.”

Comey has also acknowledged that the president had the constitutional authority to fire him for any or no cause. President Donald Trump also had the constitutional authority to order Comey to end the investigation of Flynn. He could have pardoned Flynn, as Bush pardoned Weinberger, thus ending the Flynn investigation, as Bush ended the Iran-Contra investigation. What Trump could not do is what Nixon did: direct his aides to lie to the FBI, or commit other independent crimes. There is no evidence that Trump did that.

With these factors in mind, let’s turn to the Comey statement.

Former FBI Director James Comey’s written statement, which was released in advance of his Thursday testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, does not provide evidence that President Trump committed obstruction of justice or any other crime. Indeed it strongly suggests that even under the broadest reasonable definition of obstruction, no such crime was committed.

The crucial conversation occurred in the Oval Office on February 14 between the President and the then director. According to Comey’s contemporaneous memo, the president expressed his opinion that General Flynn “is a good guy.” Comey replied: “He is a good guy.”

The President said the following: “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this thing go.”

Comey understood that to be a reference only to the Flynn investigation and not “the broader investigation into Russia or possible links to the campaign.”

Comey had already told the President that “we were not investigating him personally.”

Comey understood “the President to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December.”

Comey did not say he would “let this go,” and indeed he did not grant the president’s request to do so. Nor did Comey report this conversation to the attorney general or any other prosecutor. He was troubled by what he regarded as a breach of recent traditions of FBI independence from the White House, though he recognized that “throughout history, some presidents have decided that because ‘problems’ come from the Department of Justice, they should try to hold the Department close.”

That is an understatement.

Throughout American history — from Adams to Jefferson to Lincoln to Roosevelt to Kennedy to Obama — presidents have directed (not merely requested) the Justice Department to investigate, prosecute (or not prosecute) specific individuals or categories of individuals.

It is only recently that the tradition of an independent Justice Department and FBI has emerged. But traditions, even salutary ones, cannot form the basis of a criminal charge. It would be far better if our constitution provided for prosecutors who were not part of the executive branch, which is under the direction of the president.

In Great Britain, Israel and other democracies that respect the rule of law, the Director of Public Prosecution or the Attorney General are law enforcement officials who, by law, are independent of the Prime Minister.

But our constitution makes the Attorney General both the chief prosecutor and the chief political adviser to the president on matters of justice and law enforcement.

The president can, as a matter of constitutional law, direct the Attorney General, and his subordinate, the Director of the FBI, tell them what to do, whom to prosecute and whom not to prosecute. Indeed, the president has the constitutional authority to stop the investigation of any person by simply pardoning that person.

Assume, for argument’s sake, that the President had said the following to Comey: “You are no longer authorized to investigate Flynn because I have decided to pardon him.” Would that exercise of the president’s constitutional power to pardon constitute a criminal obstruction of justice? Of course not. Presidents do that all the time.

The first President Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger, his Secretary of Defense, in the middle of an investigation that could have incriminated Bush. That was not an obstruction and neither would a pardon of Flynn have been a crime. A president cannot be charged with a crime for properly exercising his constitutional authority

For the same reason President Trump cannot be charged with obstruction for firing Comey, which he had the constitutional authority to do.

The Comey statement suggests that one reason the President fired him was because of his refusal or failure to publicly announce that the FBI was not investigating Trump personally. Trump “repeatedly” told Comey to “get that fact out,” and he did not.

If that is true, it is certainly not an obstruction of justice.

Nor is it an obstruction of justice to ask for loyalty from the director of the FBI, who responded “you will get that (‘honest loyalty’) from me.”

Comey understood that he and the President may have understood that vague phrase — “honest loyalty” — differently. But no reasonable interpretation of those ambiguous words would give rise to a crime. 
 Many Trump opponents were hoping that the Comey statement would provide smoking guns.

It has not.

Instead it has weakened an already weak case for obstruction of justice.

The statement may provide political ammunition to Trump opponents, but unless they are willing to stretch Comey’s words and take Trump’s out of context, and unless they are prepared to abandon important constitutional principles and civil liberties that protect us all, they should not be searching for ways to expand already elastic criminal statutes and shrink enduring constitutional safeguards in a dangerous and futile effort to criminalize political disagreements.

The first casualty of partisan efforts to “get” a political opponent — whether Republicans going after Clinton or Democrats going after Trump — is often civil liberties. All Americans who care about the Constitution and civil liberties must join together to protest efforts to expand existing criminal law to get political opponents.

Today it is Trump. Yesterday it was Clinton. Tomorrow it could be you.

Then-Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, May 3, 2017, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Eric Thayer/Getty Images)

Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.”

Hillary Clinton Considered Encouraging Palestinian Protests Against Israel

The latest batch of emails released by the US State Department reveals that Clinton may have been seeking to encourage an anti-Israel atmosphere and generate Palestinian protests in order to force Israel to the negotiating table.


Former secretary of state and current presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton had considered plans to foment unrest against Israel among Palestinians in order to push the Israeli government to make concessions to the Palestinian at the negotiating table.

Based on emails released as part of the investigation into Clintons’ private email server, the Washington Free Beacon reported Monday that on December 18, 2011, former US ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering sent Clinton an email suggesting that she consider a plan to restart then-stalled peace negotiations by instigating Palestinian demonstrations against Israel.

Pickering described the effort as a potential “game changer in the region,” recommending that the United States undertake a clandestine campaign to generate unrest.

Clinton requested that his email be printed.

“This is far from a sure thing, but far, in my humble view, from hopeless,” Pickering wrote.

Pickering’s reasoning also demonstrated his condescending approach toward the Palestinians. “It [the demonstrations] must be all and only women. Why? On the Palestinian side the male culture is to use force. Palestinian men will not for long patiently demonstrate — they will be inclined over time and much too soon to be frustrated and use force. Their male culture comes close to requiring it.”

Pickering noted that the administration must keep its role in the demonstration a secret, so as not to aggravate ties with Israel, according to the Free Beacon report.

“Most of all the United States, in my view, cannot be seen to have stimulated, encouraged or be the power behind it for reasons you will understand better than anyone,” he wrote

He suggested that the government enlist non-profit groups in Israel to operate against it. “I believe third parties and a number NGOs [non-government organizations] on both sides would help.”

rock terror

Palestinian demonstrators. (Flash90)

Another Clinton confidant, Anne-Marie Slaughter, sent a staff-wide email to Clinton staffers in September 2010 recommending that they undertake a “Pledge for Palestine” campaign aimed at convincing US millionaires and billionaires to donate significant portions of their wealth to the “Palestinian cause” which could help shame Israel.

“Such a campaign among billionaires/multi-millionaires around the world would reflect a strong vote of confidence in the building of a Palestinian state and could offset the ending of the moratorium for Palestinians,” Slaughter wrote in the email. “There would also be a certain shaming effect re Israelis, who would be building settlements in the face of a pledge for peace.”

Slaughter, who described the effort as a “crazy idea,” suggested using the “Clinton fundraising network” in order to raise the money needed.

“With even 30 calls to the right people in the Clinton fundraising network it should be possible to generate a substantial enough amount quickly enough to capture the public imagination,” she wrote.

Clinton’s responses to these ideas were not recorded in the emails.

Clinton’s published emails have already revealed a treasure trove of anti-Israel sentiments expressed by herself and her staff as well as suggestions for anti-Israel actions.

By: United with Israel Staff

Skip to toolbar